9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 13(3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Removal of the sole arbitrator on grounds of alleged bias and prejudice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Section 13(3) and (4): The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 13(3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the Act lacks provisions for the removal of an arbitrator by the Court, unlike the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioner contended that there is no remedy available under the Act to challenge an arbitral award on the grounds of bias and prejudice. The Court noted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, aimed at minimizing judicial interference to ensure speedy dispute resolution. Section 5 of the Act explicitly bars judicial intervention except as provided within the Act. Section 13 outlines the challenge procedure against an arbitrator. If the arbitrator does not withdraw or the other party does not agree to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal decides on the challenge. If unsuccessful, the tribunal continues the proceedings and makes an award, which can be challenged under Section 34. The Court emphasized that the Act allows challenging an arbitral award on grounds of public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), which includes bias and prejudice. The principles of natural justice and public policy inherently cover issues of bias, making the provisions of Section 13(3) and (4) constitutionally valid. The Court concluded that the absence of a provision for the removal of an arbitrator during proceedings does not render the Act unconstitutional. The legislative intent was to avoid delays caused by judicial interference, ensuring the speedy resolution of disputes. 2. Removal of the Sole Arbitrator: The petitioner alleged bias and prejudice against the sole arbitrator, an ex-director of the petitioner and a member of the Indian Council of Arbitration. The arbitrator had rejected the petitioner's request to recuse himself and continued the proceedings. The Court refrained from delving into the factual allegations of bias and prejudice at this stage. It held that the petitioner could challenge the arbitral award on these grounds under Section 34 after the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Addressing these allegations prematurely could prejudice the arbitration process and the subsequent judicial review. Conclusion: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 13(3) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming that the Act provides sufficient remedies for challenging an arbitral award on grounds of bias and prejudice. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise the issue of bias and prejudice at the appropriate stage, post-arbitral award.
|
